By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Delta and United join list of companies to cut ties with the NRA - maybe this truly is the end of gun rights in the US?

SuaveSocialist said:

1. You only asked "privilege at whose authority", not the methodologies said authority could use.  I never said that an equivalent to the authority would be limited to using identical methodologies as those who issue driver's licenses and auto insurance.  Are you reading things differently than as they are written again?

2. Well, you've gone from what was written to another thing entirely without any logical explanation of how you got there, so your literacy remains suspect.  

3. Good for you.  You still aren't presenting evidence of rational thinking, though.  

4. No, it's not.  The "bandwagon fallacy" is committed when one asserts that the opinion of the majority is valid.  My statement did not reference an opinion at all, let alone appeal to an opinion's popularity as merit for its truth.  My statement was a verifiable fact.  Pretty much the rest of the free world lacks a Second Amendment or an equivalent thereof, yet they are still free.  That fact refutes your earlier claim and it is not a fallacy to point that out to you. 

5.  I never said anything about revolution.  Are you reading things differently than as they've been written again?  Because that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said in point 5.

I'm giving you one last chance to type something coherent.  

1. So you are suggesting that the American worker acquiesce to the capitalist-controlled state and private insurance companies? Again, are you a socialist or not? 

2. Any intelligent discourse involves addressing the implications of what one writes. That is a staple of any analysis of ideas. If you don't understand that, then maybe it is you who needs to improve your literacy. 

3. So it is obvious to me that you either have some novel definition of "rational" or you don't understand what the word rational means. I provided the reasons to justify my position. You continue to refuse to address them and merely continue to assert "You still aren't presenting evidence of rational thinking." 

4. You are the only person who used the terminology "free world." My original statement was: 

"When gun-ownership is not socially protected the people lack the means to affirm their will outside of the rigged political process. "

And you talk about me showing signs of illiteracy? I'll bite though. Do you think living in capitalism and liberal democracies constitutes a "free world"? If so, why are you estimating freedom in terms of bourgeois values while also calling yourself a socialist? Your statement doesn't even address mine. Instead it appeals to bourgeois mumbo-jumbo about the "free world." Hence, I made the claim of a bandwagon fallacy, because the only way I could parse such a response to my statement, from a self-proclaimed socialist, is that it was a rough claim of some normative position that "other countries are free, without socially protected gun ownership", which is based on opinions to questions like "what constitutes a "free world"? No country (or people rather) under capitalism is "free" and it never will be "free" in the sense a socialist would use the word unless the people have a means to liberate themselves outside of corrupted political institutions. 

5. There are only two options: reform or revolution. If you don't understand that, then it is obvious you haven't read a lick of socialist philosophy and praxis. THAT is a sign of illiteracy. When you respond "Good for you. You're wrong" to the statement "I assume you're a reformist," then it is logical for me to conclude that you are a revolutionary socialist. You don't need to say anything about revolution for me to form that conclusion, because it logically follows that all socialists who aren't reformists are revolutionaries. 

Yet still, you question my literacy? Don't make me giggle. 



Around the Network
Puppyroach said: 

1. It could be amended to more clearly specify what it refers to (because it is very vague as it is written) nut it opens up for lawmakers to put many regulations on gun ownership. Does it mean that the government shall not infringe on the right to bear arms of a well regulated miltia is to be upheld, does it refer to every citizens right to bear arms? What exactly does it refer to?

2. If we assume that it does refer to every citizen (although that might actually contradict the text), is that right infringed if assault rifles are not part of the picture? If you have the right to own a hunting rifle, you do have the right to bear arms. It does not state "to keep and bear ANY arms" and seem to open up for quite a lot of regulation.

3. Also, can the right be infringed upon if it come in conflict with life, liberty and the pursuit of happines? No law text is a binary system where we can judge everything in black and white. They must always be weighed with other rights given by society and can sometimes come in conflict with them.

4.  in any way, stand in the way of banning every automatic rifle for example.

5. Aslong as there are weapons available for the citizens to own, that right does not stand in contradiction with heavlity regulating the amount of different weapons available.

1. Since there is no agreement on what it should be amended to this is unlikely. 

2. The Supreme Court in D.C vs. Heller made the decision on the following grounds: that the weapons be in "common use" by the militia. Since there are at least 50 million semi-automatic rifles in the U.S, it seems like a stretch to interpret such weapons as not being in "common use." 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

"    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”"

3. These are not codified in the constitution. Plus that would be a very hard legal argument to make. 

4. The Supreme Court agreed, that is why automatic rifles are heavily regulated by the NFA (1933) and FOPA (1986.) 

5. Again the Supreme Court had much more specific criteria, that any weapons that are in "common use" by the militia can't be banned. Since semi-automatic rifles make up a significant proportion of new rifle sales, it seems unlikely that a future Supreme Court will decide that said weapons aren't in common use. 



FIT_Gamer said:
Yerm said:
Ive tried remaining open-minded and at the most just wanted some simple gun reform to make the damn things less accessible to psychopaths, but it has gone past that at this point. there is no good reason why any US citizen needs to own a gun, and the longer we try to act like guns are not the problem, the more people are going to get killed.

Yeah there are. To protect against our corrupt police and against the thousands of guns that are brought into this country illegally by people with bad intentions. 

There is no reason guns should be brought into the US illegally since I'm pretty sure that the US makes more guns annually then any other country in the world.  I'm pretty sure a good chunk of those illegal guns where actually made in the US to begin with.



Lots of countries have guns and are just fine. There’s just more crazy people in the United States.



sc94597 said:
SuaveSocialist said:

1. You only asked "privilege at whose authority", not the methodologies said authority could use.  I never said that an equivalent to the authority would be limited to using identical methodologies as those who issue driver's licenses and auto insurance.  Are you reading things differently than as they are written again?

2. Well, you've gone from what was written to another thing entirely without any logical explanation of how you got there, so your literacy remains suspect.  

3. Good for you.  You still aren't presenting evidence of rational thinking, though.  

4. No, it's not.  The "bandwagon fallacy" is committed when one asserts that the opinion of the majority is valid.  My statement did not reference an opinion at all, let alone appeal to an opinion's popularity as merit for its truth.  My statement was a verifiable fact.  Pretty much the rest of the free world lacks a Second Amendment or an equivalent thereof, yet they are still free.  That fact refutes your earlier claim and it is not a fallacy to point that out to you. 

5.  I never said anything about revolution.  Are you reading things differently than as they've been written again?  Because that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said in point 5.

I'm giving you one last chance to type something coherent.  

1A. So you are suggesting that the American worker acquiesce to the capitalist-controlled state and private insurance companies?   

1B. Again, are you a socialist or not? 

2. Any intelligent discourse involves addressing the implications of what one writes. 

3. So it is obvious to me that you either have some novel definition of "rational" 

4. You are the only person who used the terminology "free world." My original statement was: 

"When gun-ownership is not socially protected the people lack the means to affirm their will outside of the rigged political process. "

5. There are only two options: reform or revolution. 

6. Yet still, you question my literacy? 

1A.  That's how American society is structured, so that's how it would play out.  Sure is a lot more practical an answer than laying out the systematic overhaul of all of American government/society and then using the exact same authority I'd previously mentioned, only with a Socialist State and government-run insurance company.

1B. Yes, I am a Socialist.

2.  For the discourse to be intelligent, one must explain what those implications are owed to and how you reached that conclusion.  All you did was read one thing and assume another.  That's not "intelligent".  Maybe I just unnecessarily hold myself to a higher intellectual standard.

3.  "Based on, or in accordance with reason/logic".

4.  Yes, I did use that terminology, and my statement, specifically because of your above clause that I highlighted in bold.  

5.  I am neither reformist nor revolutionary, yet my statement in 1B is still accurate.  

6.  And your capacity for rational thought.  

You had your chance.  You blew it.  Bye!



Around the Network
Harkins1721 said:
Torillian said:

 

When guns are as necessary to modern life as cars that might make some sense. Let me know when you can ride your pistol to school. 

And they were at a time. The same people that call all cops racist are the same ones now defending the deputies that waited outside the school and did nothing. 300 million guns in America. You can ban them but it won't do anything. Especially when you have the FBI miss clear and obvious signs with the shooter.

 

All of that is completely immaterial to your fallacious comparison. Again, we put up with the dangers of cars because they are an essential part of modern life in a way that I would argue guns are not. Can you give an argument for why guns are as necessary for modern life? 



...

I don't see how people can see this and jump to the conclusion this is "the end of gun rights". Very few people are clamoring for a total ban on guns. But one can easily see that the near complete lack of control on what guns can be sold to what people is catastrophic in the USA.



RolStoppable said:
Nem said:

Guns ARE the problem. Guns are made to KILL people. Don't tell me they aren't the problem, you are just plain wrong. It's backwards thinking like that that leads to the slaughter of children every year. Do you feel proud about that? That you are enabling murder?

No, guns aren't the problem. There are guns in all of Europe, and Europe doesn't have the problems of the USA.

Except that it’s maybe a 1/100th in Europe. Guns ARE the problem.



SuaveSocialist said:

1A.  That's how American society is structured, so that's how it would play out.  Sure is a lot more practical an answer than laying out the systematic overhaul of all of American government/society and then using the exact same authority I'd previously mentioned, only with a Socialist State and government-run insurance company.

1B. Yes, I am a Socialist.

2.  For the discourse to be intelligent, one must explain what those implications are owed to and how you reached that conclusion.  All you did was read one thing and assume another.  That's not "intelligent".  Maybe I just unnecessarily hold myself to a higher intellectual standard.

3.  "Based on, or in accordance with reason/logic".

4.  Yes, I did use that terminology, and my statement, specifically because of your above clause that I highlighted in bold.  

5.  I am neither reformist nor revolutionary, yet my statement in 1B is still accurate.  

6.  And your capacity for rational thought.  

You had your chance.  You blew it.  Bye!

1A. Case in point. You think that the capitalist class should control the workers until your chosen elite of bureaucrats can take their place as the dominant social class. State capitalism is not socialism. I suppose you're right in that it is practical though, practical to deprive the workers of their autonomy and to reduce the costs of any disagreements to such an order. 

1B. No you're not. Unless you believe the working class should determine for itself whether or not it should be armed, you're not a socialist. Your first post cheered on corporate power over the interests of the common person to keep an alternative means of political action. 

2. I explained quite well, you just chose to ignore it. The liberal-democratic state is controlled by the bourgeoisie and the state bureaucrats whom work for their interests. Their goal is to disarm the workers to make any revolutionary action less effective and to consequently make their rule less costly. Putting the power to "privilege" whom can or cannot own guns into the hands of the capitalist class necessarily means (by the very material interests of the capitalist class) the eventual disarmament of the working class. It is why Orwell and Marx both made it clear that the working class should not budge on this.

3. And I gave the reason. Which you will never address, because you don't honestly believe in socialist principles of worker control and democracy. Instead you propose that capitalist institutions dominate the common man, with no qualms in suggesting so.

4. Yet you didn't comprehend (or address) the actual statement made. Social protections can come from many different organizations. Merely having a large swath of the workforce refusing to allow themselves to be disarmed is an example of social protection. It has nothing to do with the concept of freedom pushed in your response. 

5. That is a pretty nonsensical position. Either you believe gradual changes within capitalism and the liberal-democratic state are sufficient to achieve socialism (which makes you a reformist) or you believe revolution (of some kind) is necessary. These are how these positions have been defined in socialist literature and they are necessarily defined in a way so as they are mutually-exclusive and binary. You can take the position that you are a revolutionary who supports social reform, but that doesn't make you a reformist but a revolutionary who is okay with reforms until there are revolutions. 

See ya again soon, SuaveStateCapitalist. Keep on the good fight for state-capitalism and the stamping out of worker's autonomy! Bye, bye!



Good. The right to live is more important than any gun "rights".